- cross-posted to:
- games@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- games@lemmy.world
I know this might start war in the comments so please chill people, I don’t want to get 20 reports from this single post.
I know this might start war in the comments so please chill people, I don’t want to get 20 reports from this single post.
The article is not about how the game shouldn’t be political (because this notion is absurd). It’s about how idiotic the treatment of the writer’s views is, to the point it feels like a parody of the statement they wanted to make.
Indeed, I still get someone giving me names of nonpolitical games.
What about pong?
Tennis again?
Joke aside, pure competitive games are indeed just pure competitive games with no context at all. But competition in itself is ideological and political (the need to make the opponent lose) so Pong is too.
It’s a point of view on multiplayer gaming. In Pong there is always a loser and a winner, never two winners, never two losers (can we even make a draw in original Pong? I don’t know).
Pong is also a game that opposed human versus computer, it can be view as pure skill exercise to be a ‘better’ human or it can be literally a fight against the machine like playing chess against a computer. Both makes me want to ask what is the point to do this ? I think answers at this questions are political indeed.